Tuesday, 20 November 2012

Today was the day the Church of England narrowly turned down
a proposal that would allow women to become bishops. Clearly this made headline
news in the UK, especially as it had been widely anticipated that it would be
passed. One may wonder what having women bishops has to do with church growth
and why I, as a mathematical modeller, should deem it worthy of comment. I
think the reason I feel the need to say something is precisely because it does
not have much to do with church growth! If the church were to face the serious
issues that would help its survival, future growth and ability to carry out its
mandate to evangelise the world, deciding on women bishops would not be on the
priority list.

Perhaps what intrigues me is the underlying reason as to why
this bill for women bishops is being opposed, and I think the same reason why
people now want to bring it in. It is that reason which has everything to do
with church growth, or the lack of it. And I don’t mean all the arguments from
the Bible and tradition for and against, or the need to be modern and relevant.
Strip all that to one side and what is happening is that a centuries old
tradition that has forced everyone to accept women cannot have the leadership
position of a bishop is being replaced by a rule which now would eventually
force everyone to accept that they can. That is, one type of uniformity is
being replaced by another. Uniformity, or the lack of diversity in church life,
is to me the underlying issue to the debate on women bishops and the issue that
affects church growth.

There is a marked contrast between the USA and Europe when
it comes to church growth. In the USA the churches are generally strong and many
are still growing. In Europe churches are declining fast and have been since
the Second World War. The reason put forward by many sociologists of religion is that
Christianity is established and regulated in Europe, whereas in the US there is
no established church and a “free market” in religion operates. As such the US
has a much greater degree of competition as reflected in the highly diverse
nature of churches. Church leaders can be innovative without any over-arching
body to insist on single uniformity.

This is where my modelling comes in. It is that freedom to
compete and innovate that allows enthusiasts to flourish and generate more enthusiasts.
Enthusiasts are the drivers of church growth. Uniformity, and the regulation that comes with it, stifles enthusiasm, restricts
enthusiasts, and ultimately quenches growth, the work of the Holy Spirit, and
revival. In the debate on women bishops it is that desire for uniformity that
bothers me, rather than the issue itself. Allow both to coexist side-by-side,
and if necessary compete. This will make for stronger churches.

Of course some diversity does exist in the UK as there are
many denominations. People are free to start churches, and the rise of many new
and independent denominations such as New Frontiers and Vineyard, continues.
These will no doubt be the main denominations of the future when many of the
older ones have run their course. (Ironically neither of these have women leaders! Although they do allow married couples to lead together.) There is certainly some innovation in the Church of England, it was an Anglican congregation that
brought about the Alpha Course, the one initiative that has probably had more
impact than any other in last 20 years (or more!). And there are many other
examples.

But the majority of the C of E remains untouched, as do many
older denominations, because there is not the expectation among the people or ministers that diversity and
competition are healthy and to be encouraged. Somehow the spirit of 1662 lives
on in the UK. That was the year of the act of uniformity which brought to an
end a generation or more of experiment and innovation in church life and
worship. It was also know as the great ejection when many ministers were forced
to leave the church as episcopacy and the prayer book became compulsory. The
effect on the church’s mission was disastrous and it did not start to recover
until the Methodist revivals 70 years later.

I can’t imagine constructing a model of the effect of
introducing women bishops on the growth of the church. But I am working on
models of the effects of uniformity and the stifling of enthusiasts. Hopefully
I will be able to bring some insights into the positive effects of allowing
diversity, de-regulation and competition on the growth of the church and making
it better able to take the world for Christ.